Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
    Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

    1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

    2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

    A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

    I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.


    Bingo.........

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

      Apparently no one thinks we have a chance in free agency this summer. We have the money to bring in 2 impact players in the 8-10 mil range, or 1 max player like Williams, and still be able to keep Hibbert and most likely PG in the long run due to the timing of our other contracts expiring. It's really our last chance to make a big splash and I expect Bird to do so. We have a talented young team and I think other players will see what West did last summer which is that it's a very good situation to walk into while still getting paid.
      If Williams does want to leave NJ, I'd think we'd be on his short list. Who else has the cap space and talent we do next year?
      If we strike out on Williams we simply add talent and assets for a trade but it doesn't have to be Granger that's traded. If we add a big man like Kaman then we could move West, who with only 1 more year on his contract may have greater trade value to some teams. Nash would be a short term fix but a great consolation prize that might get us by while we try to draft the pg of the future. I'd like to see what Bird can do in free agency and not move any core players at the deadline this year. If we can pick up Kaman or Nash for almost nothing or pick one of them up off waivers I'd be all over that.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

        This puzzles me....I can understand some of the arguments in this thread, but the biggest one that confuses me is the Danny holding Paul back, and therefor, Danny should be ousted....

        This in theory, makes sense, but in reality, look at the stats Paul put up when Danny was injured...They were minimal. To truly test this theory would be to simply make Paul Danny's backup for a couple games. Paul would get more rest, Danny would get more rest, if you need them both in due to the circumstances, you still have them both. Let Hill get healthy, start him a couple games at the 2, and Danny at the 3...Rotate George in for Danny, and you can see what the team would look like without Danny.

        IMO, Danny is not done, and unless you are getting a lopsided deal in the Pacers favor, this is a no go....

        I also read somewhere that Bird told Danny that he was the core of the team and we were building around him....History tells us that Bird is good to his word, and if he said Danny is our organizations' foundation.....He will be until he's done....
        http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
          If we can pick up Kaman or Nash for almost nothing or pick one of them up off waivers I'd be all over that.
          What in the.....

          I actually think the Pacers have a good chance at getting DWill. There is only one big team who has any room for him and that is Dallas. Miami can't afford him, NY can't afford him, Boston could but they have Rondo, Lakers are can't afford him. Does he even give NJ the chance to sign Howard? NJ is a team with a losing culture I would not be surprised to see him bolt.

          A team like the Pacers would be a no brainer for him in terms of fit.


          If Danny is traded it will be in the last year of his deal.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

            Going by recent Pacer history, if we ever do trade him, it will only be after he has declined and his value in the trade market has dipped.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

              I have read articles were Larry talks about loyalty a lot, I think his loyalty is a blessing and a curse at the same time, teams that win championships usually put those things to the side, Larry to me is too loyal and proud for the Pacers own good.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by spazzxb View Post
                If DWill wants to contend for a ring, we have money this summer.

                Sent from my Galaxy Nexus
                But, but, but, what about Eric Gordon?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  I have read articles were Larry talks about loyalty a lot, I think his loyalty is a blessing and a curse at the same time, teams that win championships usually put those things to the side, Larry to me is too loyal and proud for the Pacers own good.
                  Sometimes loyalty works out for the best, though, like with Paul Pierce circa 2004-2007.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                    I'm keeping DG, PG, and GH. I like Roy but his lack of athleticism, strength, and speed can be depressing. DC is just not a PG but a really short SG. I don't understand what has happened to Tyler.

                    We are getting beat by teams wit lesser players and more athleticism.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                      Originally posted by Eddie Gill View Post
                      But, but, but, what about Eric Gordon?
                      Does Eric Gordon ever play? The NBA won't let him leave NO..

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                        Originally posted by ejwallace View Post
                        This puzzles me....I can understand some of the arguments in this thread, but the biggest one that confuses me is the Danny holding Paul back, and therefor, Danny should be ousted....

                        This in theory, makes sense, but in reality, look at the stats Paul put up when Danny was injured...They were minimal. To truly test this theory would be to simply make Paul Danny's backup for a couple games. Paul would get more rest, Danny would get more rest, if you need them both in due to the circumstances, you still have them both. Let Hill get healthy, start him a couple games at the 2, and Danny at the 3...Rotate George in for Danny, and you can see what the team would look like without Danny.

                        IMO, Danny is not done, and unless you are getting a lopsided deal in the Pacers favor, this is a no go....

                        I also read somewhere that Bird told Danny that he was the core of the team and we were building around him....History tells us that Bird is good to his word, and if he said Danny is our organizations' foundation.....He will be until he's done....
                        You miss the point. You trade a player like Granger when his value is high before he declines. He is the Pacers best player but he is not a game changer. If you can get something really good and younger for Granger, you do it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                          Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                          1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.
                          Replace Danny/Paul with Jordan/Pippen and re-evaluate this "problem".

                          Paul HAD BEEN the designated "Pippen", the guy that does the first rotation with the bench as it is fed in, then later on he comes out and Danny comes back. So Paul had been getting plenty of "I'm the man" time. He was really struggling so Vogel switched that and instead kept Danny out with the bench instead to improve scoring, which has worked.

                          I understand the overall point of your post, the idea that Danny is playing well right now, you like Danny, but you see a chance to re-org the structure. But I just disagree that this is a problem and I certainly wouldn't view this as "trading while he's hot". Danny has returned this year, he's not "Dunleavy in his career year". I think we can easily expect Danny to continue at this level for 5-6 more years.

                          There is room for both even now. Paul is just young and confused about his role. All the guys are feeling their way still. But as they figure out who does what well, and when it's the right time to make a play or move, they are going to be pretty bad ***. It's the fact that when you try to ISO for a 2 man game and you end up stuck with either Danny or Paul as one of the defenders in most situations that makes the Pacers so strong on defense. Switches are harder to pull of and nearly everything on the wing is getting defended well (past the initial PnR).



                          Personally I THINK (not just desire) that Danny ends up a lifer Pacer. He's shown the passion and will and I think that keeps his value higher within the org than without.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Sometimes loyalty works out for the best, though, like with Paul Pierce circa 2004-2007.
                            Yes but I think we can all agree that Pierce is a better player than Danny making hard for him to be replace, the guy is a hall of famer, Danny is a good player but is easier to replace him, there are a lot of players like him in the NBA(Wallace,Deng,Gay,JJ,etc).

                            You are right the Celtics were Loyal to Pierce but they were not Loyal to their young core, they traded their whole team for veterans to compete for a championship and I could never see Larry doing that, I hope I'm wrong though.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                              Danny has returned this year, he's not "Dunleavy in his career year". I think we can easily expect Danny to continue at this level for 5-6 more years.
                              Are you sure about that? Danny has regressed every year in almost every category, if he keeps regressing at the rate he has he is going to be shooting a low percentage while averaging way less ppg that he is getting now or in 5 or 6 years.

                              I would like to know why you are saying that "Danny has returned"
                              Last edited by vnzla81; 02-19-2012, 01:33 PM.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                                you can pretty much forget about this iteration of the Pacers ever really contending.
                                I just can't get how any Pacers fan ever thinks this. I'm actually really sick of hearing this general "we need a mega-star" or "we must have a top 5 pick/tank" angles from a team that already proved that is wrong.

                                Everyone acts like they knew about Reggie, Smits, playoff success, etc when the team lost 3-1 to the Knicks the year before Brown. At that time the team's best player was DETLEF, not Reggie. Det was back to back 6th man and the CURRENT all-star. It had been a few years since Reggie's ONLY AS appearance (at the time).

                                So if you were living in that era with the views on Danny/talent we show now you would have said the following:

                                1) Detlef is your best player, you build around him. And if you trade him it must be for another regular AS player (McKey was NOT that, so fail 1)

                                2) Reggie is a nice SG but he's never going to be Jordan, he can't get his own shot, he's not a great defender and the team will never get to the Finals if he's your best player. I like him but he's just not good enough. (Fail 2 because they didn't upgrade him)

                                3) Smits isn't the answer at C. He's not athletic enough and can defend the paint. He's a soft, touch scorer, not a power player and not a defensive force. (fail 3, no upgrade here either)


                                By the way, there is also no way you can expect to get a borderline AS PF from the 2nd round, maybe even sent to Europe to improve his skills. Antonio Davis does not exist and no one thought he could exist.


                                Also there is no way you could acquire Mark Jackson at that point. He's not with the team and all you are going to have is guys like Fleming, Workman or Michael Williams who are not enough to lead a team. They are good bench types but not elite team starters.


                                And then the team swapped coaches, did trade down in total talent level for Larry Brown's desire*, had 2nd rounder Antonio return from Europe, and with Workman at point they went to the ECF game 7. And then they did it again the next year. And 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years later. 5 ECF in 7 years is ELITE, and they did this from years of .500 with no high picks, no major FA, and not even a regular AS.

                                The Pacers have won using the team concept, and the Pistons reproved it a few years ago as well. I'd say even Memphis has proven it in recent years.




                                In short, this team has nearly all the talent it needs right now. Maybe you need one more guy on the bench, maybe you need Tyler to improve a little (or upgrade him), maybe you could slightly upgrade DC or Roy, but you probably don't need to do all of those things.


                                *As a reminder, Det was 19.6, 9.5, 6.0 the prior year, so #2 ppg, #1 rpg, #2 apg. Traded. I understand the defensive thing and I liked McKey, but people forget that Det was a killer offensive all-around threat and went on to be part of a multi-threat elite Seattle team (the Pacers justification was too many options, needed a defensive specialist...that's Brown-speak for justifying his random roster changes, like trading Jax then benching Rose, then asking for Jax back)
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-19-2012, 01:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X